CharlesKozierok: Are you a trained and licensed psychologist?
M: Here you ask a question:
C: I would assume not, because if you were, you would behave in a more responsible manner. Assuming not, the above is just more of the amateur psychoanalysis you seem to consider a hobby. It may entertain you, but I assure you that it either bores or insults everyone else.
M: Here you answer it and then assume, if you yourself are a licenses psychologist, your version of what means to exercise responsibility in that field, if it even applies here in a forum, is the correct understanding of all the various kinds of responsibilities various psychologists might offer up as proper, or, if you are not a psychologist and I am not, that your amateur understanding of psychological responsibility is superior to my amateur understanding. Naturally, the intention is to create the impression, for your own mind, that I am an amateur and even an amateur might detect in that some inner need or motivation. And, of course, you can assure me of nothing because, as with other forms of insults people like to throw, boredom is a phenomenon that happens to boring people, folk who have choked on some unconscious feeling they are trying to repress and again, my years of knowledge, introspetcion, and analysis of others have shown me that.
C: And despite your "long life of examination" it hasn't occurred to you that such "likening" would just be taken by said human beings as an insult. Neat.
C: You're not a very careful listener, I fear. People hate themselves, don't know it and don't want to know it, psychologists included. I've said it a thousand times because it can't be heard. There is nothing you can liken them to which will not insult them. The truth about ourselves is the greatest insult there is, and, my turn to suspect, it is probably what you find about me so threatening that you have this need to respond as you have. Just a guess, mind you, based on my years of analysis and experience with having hundreds of tons of garbage heaped on my head at the mention of the words 'self hate'. But you could check out the web. More and more professional psychologists ect. seem to be taking it seriously.
C: And yet you didn't. Why? Seems to me because you just wanted to use the thread as another reason to employ your psychobabble against conservatives.
M: I didn't because I am flawed exactly as I said. But probably that's not good enough for you. You want to gnaw at your bone. And you strike me as an extremely intelligent person. Could you find another term than psychobabble, maybe just actually present some sort of case. I see the use of the term psychobabble as just a form of deflection.
C: Yes, it is.
M: I try for honesty. I told you so to affirm your faith in your own insight, not so you could bask in it's glory. Not saying you are or that it would bother me if you did, only that there is a difference in how a generous spirit and a mean one react to another's confession.
C: The same is true of those who are not conservative.
M: Same is some ways, different in others. My point is that conservatives seek emotional confirmation whereas liberals seek confirmation of their reasoning. These are, of course, tendencies, not absolutes.
C: Where were you in 2008? Did you not notice the fanfare surrounding one Barack Obama?
M: My intention was to say that conservatives must have folk they look up to as conservative authorities because there are many many conservatives and there are surely folk among them who are spot on in arguing for a conservative perspective. In short, I was saying that intelligent conservative that conservatives admire must exist. I was saying that my view of their experts might look like their view of Beck.
C: So you've just admitted that in a thread about intelligent conservative commentators, you decided to involve yourself even though you can't think of any, and instead deliberately mentioned someone you consider not intelligent but "delusional".
M: Mostly yes, but again, you don't seem to be too familiar with my position. I've only said about a thousand times now that conservatives are not stupid, that calling them stupid is ridiculous, and that doesn't mean I haven't been ridiculous in the past or that I won't again. The evidence, however, is that conservatives use their intelligence to rationalize their altered vies of reality, again, relatively speaking to liberals who use it more to reason. As to the rest I admit you are right and that I should not have done it. And that's what I said.
C: The behavior you just described is commonly known as "trolling".
M: I never call people trolls. I use my vast knowledge of human nature acquired over years of self analysis and the observation of others to put the term troll in human terms. I'm not a big fan of putting folk in boxes and labeling them so that one can dismiss them as 'known quantities'. It's a mind killer.
C: And that's why I said "I don't know whom you think you're fooling with this bogus little peacemaker routine, but I assure you that it's not me."
M: But you see I've admitted to the major portion of your thesis and yet you're still back in the past grinding away on it. Are you saying you don't take my admission as genuine?
C: I doubt you're fooling anyone else, either.
M: I have admitted to you all the points on which I think you are right and defended all those on which I disagree and done so sincerely. Who is fooling whom, I cannot say with certainty. I am as sincere as I can be and can't do more.
C: PS I bet you don't really know that much about Glenn Beck, and haven't listened to him much. I have. I don't agree with him about pretty much anything, but he's not really that bad of a guy.
M: I don't know how to quantify much. I called him the gentle giant. I too see a nice guy, but I have suspicions he might be fooling me. I also like most of your posts but you seem to be very strict in a psychological sort of way, kind of rigid in a almost conservative style.
Anyway, thanks for you input. I have some ways to go before I reach perfection.
PS: I forgot to mention that when I said I don't like to put people in boxes, that's exactly what I did with Beck. I pre-defined him as a nut case. Not the right thing to do.....